Last Updated on November 8, 2022 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law
November 2022
Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia – 2169/12 and 29887/14
Judgment 8.11.2022 [Section IV]
Article 2
Positive obligations
Article 2-1
Life
Effective investigation
No measures to protect life of contractual military officer who allegedly committed suicide, against backdrop of harassment and ill-treatment, and ineffective investigation into circumstances of death: violation
Facts – The applicants are the mother and sister of lieutenant A. Nazaryan, a contractual military officer who died allegedly by suicide during his military service. He was found dead on 27 July 2010 at base no. 12 of the military unit, where he was on duty on that day, with a gunshot injury to his mouth.
Following criminal proceedings, Captain H.M., who had been in charge of the base and A. Nazaryan’s direct commander, was convicted of having humiliated and ill-treated him on various occasions in the ten-day period before his death, such actions having led his eventual suicide. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Senior Lieutenant V.H. was convicted of aggravated abuse of power for having ill-treated and humiliated A. Nazaryan in complicity with Captain H.M. and two privates were convicted of aggravated use of violence. They were all sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Another private was convicted of having verbally and physically abused A. Nazaryan, his superior officer and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The second applicant’s appeals thereto were dismissed.
Law – Article 2:
(a) Substantive limb – During the course of the criminal investigation there had been a number of serious inaccuracies in relation to several important circumstances surrounding A. Nazaryan’s death as well as in relation to forensic evidence. Given the carelessness with which the investigation had been conducted and the lack of satisfactory explanations for the serious discrepancies with regard to its findings, the applicants could be forgiven for thinking that the investigation might have been covering up a more sinister explanation, such as murder. Nevertheless, the material before the Court did not allow it to support “beyond reasonable doubt” the hypothesis that A. Nazaryan’s life had been taken intentionally. Any allegation that he had been murdered would thus be purely speculative.
The State bore responsibility for the death of a victim who had been driven to suicide by bullying and ill-treatment during military service. The State’s positive obligations under Article 2 were the same for contractual military servicemen as for persons undergoing compulsory military service; both groups being within the exclusive control of the authorities. There was nothing in the material before the Court to suggest that at the relevant time there existed any system of psychological assessment and assistance in the military forces, including with regard to initial and subsequent psychological screening, prevention of suicides and availability of psychological assistance. No such support whatsoever had been available to A. Nazaryan despite his vulnerable psychological condition and the apparent signs of suicide risk. Furthermore, there had been no regulations with regard to prevention of suicide and those in charge did not have any instructions or guidance on how to deal with the situation.
It had been unequivocally established during both the criminal and internal investigations that A. Nazaryan had fallen victim to constant ill-treatment and humiliation by fellow servicemen, including his direct superior and conscripts under his command and his suicide had been directly linked to that treatment. Furthermore, it appeared that many fellow officers and conscripts had been aware of A. Nazaryan’s low morale as a consequence of his humiliation and ill-treatment. In particular, according to the findings of the internal inquiry, Captain H.M. had assaulted him in the presence of the staff, “thereby affronting his dignity and creating an unhealthy moral environment in the military base”, resulting in him being ill-treated by conscripts under his own command. That situation had been concealed from the command, resulting in his self-isolation and the deterioration of his psychological condition to a critical level. It had then been established during the criminal investigation that as of 26 July 2010 it “had become evident” to the servicemen of the military base that A. Nazaryan might harm himself. This was why Captain H.M. had ordered that the firing pin be taken out of A. Nazaryan’s assault rifle although he had not ensured whether his order had actually been followed up. However, even before that, Captain H.M and Senior Lieutenant V.H. had had such suspicions. The Court therefore considered that, at the very latest on 26 July 2010, A. Nazaryan’s superiors knew, or should have known, that there had been a real and immediate risk that he might commit suicide.
Given the absence at the relevant time of any system of psychological assessment and assistance in the military forces, it was not clear what measures, if any, the command of the military unit could have undertaken had they been aware of the situation. In any event, even if the highest command had been unaware of the matter, Captain H.M., being clearly aware of A. Nazaryan’s extremely vulnerable psychological condition and the possibility that he could harm himself as a result primarily of abuse on his own part, had failed not only to report the matter, but also to undertake any measures to avoid the risk to A. Nazaryan’s life. What was more, he had humiliated him yet again on the afternoon of 26 July 2010, threatening to humiliate him even further by organising a “court of honour”.
The Court thus concluded that the State had failed to comply with its positive obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard A. Nazaryan’s life during his military service and had failed to take appropriate and effective measures to prevent the known risk to A. Nazaryan’s life from materialising.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Procedural limb – The investigation had been conducted with the requisite diligence and withoutunjustified delay. It had also been sufficiently independent. Notwithstanding, there had been gross shortcomings seriously bringing into question the adequacy of the investigation. Amongst other things:
– There had been a discrepancy between the report of the incident from the command of the military unit received on 27 July 2010 by the Ministry of Defence and the record of the examination of the scene of the incident, the former stating that A. Nazaryan had shot himself inside a trench and the latter indicating that the body had been discovered next to a rock in the territory of base no. 12. Nothing in the statements of Captain H.M. and other servicemen suggested that they had been specifically asked about the location of the body. Only the commander of the same military unit, had been asked about the discrepancy during the trial.
– There had also been a discrepancy concerning the number of the cartridge which had been discovered on the ground close to the body between the record of the examination of the scene of the incident and the report issued upon completion of the forensic examination of the cartridge. The Government’s explanation that this discrepancy had been a “mechanical error”, did not appear in the material in the case file and in the absence of any supporting evidence, could not be considered satisfactory.
– No adequate explanations had been given to the non-ballistic injuries on the body identified in the autopsy report. During the trial the forensic medical expert testified that he had never discovered one of the injuries during the autopsy and that the indication of that injury in the autopsy report had been the result of a “mechanical error”. It was hard to conceive how a specific injury on a specific part of the body could be expressly mentioned in an autopsy report as a result of a “mechanical error” without the expert having actually discovered such an injury. In addition, although the autopsy report indicated that nineteen photographs had been attached, sixteen photographs had in fact been attached.
– During the examination of the scene of the incident, the investigator had performed a number of actions with A. Nazaryan’s assault rifle. This had resulted in it not being submitted for a forensic ballistic, trace and fingerprint examination in the original condition in which it had been discovered at the scene, making it impossible for the experts to find any fingerprints, including those belonging to A. Nazaryan, on the assault rifle submitted to them.
– The investigation had failed to explain the fact that no bullet had been missing from the magazine with which his assault rifle had been loaded.
– The majority of pre-trial witness statements had been obtained from witnesses, including those subsequently accused, who had been in military confinement for breaching “internal service rules”. No documentary evidence had been provided, however, in relation to the disciplinary isolation of A. Nazaryan’s fellow servicemen. Despite the evidence produced at trial concerning the length of the military confinement of servicemen and their possible ill-treatment, the trial court had dismissed, without specific reasons, the second applicant’s request not to admit the witness evidence obtained during the military confinement of A. Nazaryan’s fellow servicemen.
Lastly, in so far as the applicants’ participation in the investigation was concerned, from the beginning, the first applicant had been granted victim status and she had been succeeded in the proceedings by the second applicant. There was no indication that the applicants had not been kept informed about the steps in the investigation. In addition, they had been provided with the full case file upon its completion. Nonetheless, A. Nazaryan’s notebook, containing what had been declared to have been a suicide note written by him, had been removed immediately after his death by Captain H.M., one of the accused and the main perpetrator of his ill-treatment, and had been returned only about two weeks later. This had rendered it legitimate for the applicants to question whether the note had indeed been written by A. Nazaryan and not by someone else. The request to be provided with the necessary material to seek the opinion of a forensic handwriting expert abroad had been refused without any specific reasons. Moreover, neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeal had allowed any of the requests or arguments submitted by the applicants during the proceedings. In view of the foregoing the investigation conducted in this case had not been sufficiently thorough and had failed to secure the applicants’ involvement in it to a sufficient degree to protect their interests and enable them to exercise their rights efficiently.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 20,000 awarded jointly to applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Leave a Reply